New Conneticut Gun laws////Ammo sales

[ottotheclown]

Yup how many people die each day like Ebert today?? How many die each day from bullets fired from guns???Ebert died from cancer want to use that example? Geesh more proof we need backgrround checks. I bet some countries could use this logic.
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Otto,

You keep citing the 3,500 or so deaths since 12/14.

How many people die in the US every day?

About 6200/day give or take or about 188K/month.

Let's see, 17 days give or take remaining in Dec, 31 in January, 28 in February, 31 in March and let's just count 3 days so far in April as we've probably not toted up the deaths yet today.

So that's 110 days if I've done the math in my head correctly. Let's just make it 100 to make the numbers easier for me to do in my head.

During that time, 620,000 people have died in the US. Of those, approximately 0.5% of them died as the result of a firearm. Probably less since I did some beneficial to your view approximations.)

While it's sad for all those who have lost their lives, there are many killers out there and firearms hardly register on the radar relative to other causes.

So while I mourn the loss of almost anyone, I don't see this less than 0.5% as a national disaster.

After all, if we were really concerned about safety, why haven't we done something about the 11,500 killed in auto accidents during the same time period as your 3,500 gun shot victims?

After all, you and I are 4x more likely to be killed in a car than by a gun.

So if you are driving, or live anywhere near a car, your fear of gun violence is irrational!

 

[spasm3]

state midterm elections will be interesting next go round!!

 

[javacontour]

Still fewer each day than by cars.

How many die due to errors in hospitals? I've seen numbers that say between 98K and 199K/year. Let's go with the smaller number of 98K/year. That's 268/day.

So in less than two weeks, our hospitals, in charge of saving lives, kills as many people as these so called threats to society known as firearms.

So again, if you live anywhere near a car, or visit hospitals, your fear of firearms is irrational. You are 8 times more likely to be killed by your hospital or 4 times more likely to be killed in a motor vehicle accident than you are to be killed by a firearm.

That's
Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
Yup how many people die each day like Ebert today?? How many die each day from bullets fired from guns???Ebert died from cancer want to use that example? Geesh more proof we need backgrround checks. I bet some countries could use this logic.
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Otto,

You keep citing the 3,500 or so deaths since 12/14.

How many people die in the US every day?

About 6200/day give or take or about 188K/month.

Let's see, 17 days give or take remaining in Dec, 31 in January, 28 in February, 31 in March and let's just count 3 days so far in April as we've probably not toted up the deaths yet today.

So that's 110 days if I've done the math in my head correctly. Let's just make it 100 to make the numbers easier for me to do in my head.

During that time, 620,000 people have died in the US. Of those, approximately 0.5% of them died as the result of a firearm. Probably less since I did some beneficial to your view approximations.)

While it's sad for all those who have lost their lives, there are many killers out there and firearms hardly register on the radar relative to other causes.

So while I mourn the loss of almost anyone, I don't see this less than 0.5% as a national disaster.

After all, if we were really concerned about safety, why haven't we done something about the 11,500 killed in auto accidents during the same time period as your 3,500 gun shot victims?

After all, you and I are 4x more likely to be killed in a car than by a gun.

So if you are driving, or live anywhere near a car, your fear of gun violence is irrational!

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
After all, if we were really concerned about safety, why haven't we done something about the 11,500 killed in auto accidents during the same time period as your 3,500 gun shot victims?

After all, you and I are 4x more likely to be killed in a car than by a gun.

So if you are driving, or live anywhere near a car, your fear of gun violence is irrational!


Why keep pulling up that silly analog?

OK, lets do something about it - more training, mandatory strenuous tests, age limits for ownership and when one is no longer allowed to drive. Mandatory government inspection of vehicles, allowable policing of all vehicles and unannounced determination of legal compliance. Mandatory insurance, mandatory registration and government titling of every item owned. In many jurisdictions disallowment of private property in an unused state.

How does that sound??? Still like the auto argument?

Originally Posted By: javacontour
Still fewer each day than by cars.

How many die due to errors in hospitals? I've seen numbers that say between 98K and 199K/year. Let's go with the smaller number of 98K/year. That's 268/day.

So in less than two weeks, our hospitals, in charge of saving lives, kills as many people as these so called threats to society known as firearms.

So again, if you live anywhere near a car, or visit hospitals, your fear of firearms is irrational. You are 8 times more likely to be killed by your hospital or 4 times more likely to be killed in a motor vehicle accident than you are to be killed by a firearm.


The problem with that is what is the intent of autos or doctors? Is it to kill or is it to help facilitate health and commerce? Sorry but if youre saying that a gun's inherent purpose isnt to kill, youre just being silly. You cant say the same for cars.

I hate playing devils advocate, but many of these arguments are just worthless IMO...

 

[javacontour]

It's not a stupid analogy. It simply demonstrates the mentality of those who wish to put further limits on firearms.

After all, if safety where their concerns, they would logically go after the biggest killers first. Deaths in motor vehicle accidents and medical mistakes kill many times more every day than firearms.

So the proof of their motivations is in that they are not going after those bigger killers first.

If their motivation is fear, then I believe they are simply being irrational. The numbers demonstrate that there are dangers more likely to end their lives than a firearm. So fear of firearms, while still real, isn't logical and doesn't stand up to critical analysis.

No need to live in fear of the firearm when there are other things that most folks do or participate in that are far more likely to kill them than being a victim of gun violence.

That's the point, and it's really not silly.

What is silly is still being afraid of firearms when presented with the facts of the matter.

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: javacontour
After all, if we were really concerned about safety, why haven't we done something about the 11,500 killed in auto accidents during the same time period as your 3,500 gun shot victims?

After all, you and I are 4x more likely to be killed in a car than by a gun.

So if you are driving, or live anywhere near a car, your fear of gun violence is irrational!


Why keep pulling up that stupid analog?

OK, lets do something about it - more training, mandatory strenuous tests, age limits for ownership and when one is no longer allowed to drive. Mandatory government inspection of vehicles, allowable policing of all vehicles and unannounced determination of legal compliance. Mandatory insurance, mandatory registration and government titling of every item owned.

How does that sound??? Still like the stupid auto argument?

 

[javacontour]

Never killed anyone with my guns.

I'm pretty sure I've killed fewer with my guns than Ted Kennedy killed with his car

But really, dead is dead. Intent doesn't matter. If I were to kill you or your family with a gun, a botched medical procedure, or any other means, you are not going to be "ok" with it because my intent was not to kill you.

The only thing that can have INTENT is a person. The car, the gun and the hospital have no intent. They are objects. It's those who use the object that embodies 100% of the intent.

Banning or limiting the object will not fix intent, nor will it fix negligence.

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: javacontour
After all, if we were really concerned about safety, why haven't we done something about the 11,500 killed in auto accidents during the same time period as your 3,500 gun shot victims?

After all, you and I are 4x more likely to be killed in a car than by a gun.

So if you are driving, or live anywhere near a car, your fear of gun violence is irrational!


Why keep pulling up that silly analog?

OK, lets do something about it - more training, mandatory strenuous tests, age limits for ownership and when one is no longer allowed to drive. Mandatory government inspection of vehicles, allowable policing of all vehicles and unannounced determination of legal compliance. Mandatory insurance, mandatory registration and government titling of every item owned. In many jurisdictions disallowment of private property in an unused state.

How does that sound??? Still like the auto argument?

Originally Posted By: javacontour
Still fewer each day than by cars.

How many die due to errors in hospitals? I've seen numbers that say between 98K and 199K/year. Let's go with the smaller number of 98K/year. That's 268/day.

So in less than two weeks, our hospitals, in charge of saving lives, kills as many people as these so called threats to society known as firearms.

So again, if you live anywhere near a car, or visit hospitals, your fear of firearms is irrational. You are 8 times more likely to be killed by your hospital or 4 times more likely to be killed in a motor vehicle accident than you are to be killed by a firearm.


The problem with that is what is the intent of autos or doctors? Is it to kill or is it to help facilitate health and commerce? Sorry but if youre saying that a gun's inherent purpose isnt to kill, youre just being silly. You cant say the same for cars.

I hate playing devils advocate, but many of these arguments are just worthless IMO...

 

[javacontour]

Have fun, I have to drive home.

But don't fear for me...

 

[ottotheclown]

I just heard you will not believe this. The guy what's his name? the one who is the President of Syria just on tv said the same thing about traffic accidents and errors in hospitals. Same exact thing. Geesz :

:
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Still fewer each day than by cars.

How many die due to errors in hospitals? I've seen numbers that say between 98K and 199K/year. Let's go with the smaller number of 98K/year. That's 268/day.

So in less than two weeks, our hospitals, in charge of saving lives, kills as many people as these so called threats to society known as firearms.

So again, if you live anywhere near a car, or visit hospitals, your fear of firearms is irrational. You are 8 times more likely to be killed by your hospital or 4 times more likely to be killed in a motor vehicle accident than you are to be killed by a firearm.

That's
Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
Yup how many people die each day like Ebert today?? How many die each day from bullets fired from guns???Ebert died from cancer want to use that example? Geesh more proof we need backgrround checks. I bet some countries could use this logic.
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Otto,

You keep citing the 3,500 or so deaths since 12/14.

How many people die in the US every day?

About 6200/day give or take or about 188K/month.

Let's see, 17 days give or take remaining in Dec, 31 in January, 28 in February, 31 in March and let's just count 3 days so far in April as we've probably not toted up the deaths yet today.

So that's 110 days if I've done the math in my head correctly. Let's just make it 100 to make the numbers easier for me to do in my head.

During that time, 620,000 people have died in the US. Of those, approximately 0.5% of them died as the result of a firearm. Probably less since I did some beneficial to your view approximations.)

While it's sad for all those who have lost their lives, there are many killers out there and firearms hardly register on the radar relative to other causes.

So while I mourn the loss of almost anyone, I don't see this less than 0.5% as a national disaster.

After all, if we were really concerned about safety, why haven't we done something about the 11,500 killed in auto accidents during the same time period as your 3,500 gun shot victims?

After all, you and I are 4x more likely to be killed in a car than by a gun.

So if you are driving, or live anywhere near a car, your fear of gun violence is irrational!

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
Never killed anyone with my guns.

I'm pretty sure I've killed fewer with my guns than Ted Kennedy killed with his car

But really, dead is dead. Intent doesn't matter. If I were to kill you or your family with a gun, a botched medical procedure, or any other means, you are not going to be "ok" with it because my intent was not to kill you.

The only thing that can have INTENT is a person. The car, the gun and the hospital have no intent. They are objects. It's those who use the object that embodies 100% of the intent.

Banning or limiting the object will not fix intent, nor will it fix negligence.
" arguments.


True, but if youre arguing this, youre obviously not arguing day to day with the anti-gun folks like I am. I get this all the time, and Im sick of it. But it is their point. Cars and doctors are intended for good transport and for good health. Guns are made to kill - people, hunting, or targets to hone skills to do same.

I agree, intent is intent. But that argument is valid in the most basic element of what is the true, pure intent of these items? I get the "my gun has never killed anyone so it must be defective" arguments. I agree - sane, rational and responsible people arent the issue, never were, never will be. But that doesnt change the fact that guns are indeed intended to kill people, animals, etc., first and foremost, and any sport is to be indicative of such skills.

So that argument gets thrown back over and over again. Already said many times why I dont like the auto argument, but this one keeps coming back too.

Sure, dead is dead, but what was the pure intent of the profession/item? Killer car? Bullet? Killer doctor?

Since it is apparent that it is impossible to control those who use the object, and it is also impossible to require the utmost in responsible practices so that 150k dont get into the hands of malicious people, it is a tough thing.

Should we demand a gun standoff at every situation, escalating the end result because the only solution is to have a gun on everyone? Are we really going to succumb to the vision that everybody is a victim and thus needs a gun because of their victim status? Is society that far gone, given the stats that everyone loves to cite? I hate to think that we are all ostriches and can only bury our heads in the sand, or are so controlled to the whims of the boogey man that we cant think practically. Particularly since the potential for violence is so low, given your probability of death numbers that already exist. So where is the boogey man again? Please remind me...

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
We have a wee bit of fact to deal with. 3500 people have been killed since 12/14. How come? You know what with guns.


Okay, your assertion is that 3500 innocent people that were minding their own business, have been killed by someone else using a gun to kill them, since 12/14/12.

Lets see a full list of these 3500 individuals, complete with a link to their obituary.

Now don't go all ACORN on us, and use each individual name 72 times...

 

[salesrep]

This is a pretty good site I just found, though I did not verify its facts..

This is one thing that stood out.

More than half of gun deaths are suicide.


http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

Another interesting collaboration of studies

"Over 1.9 million of those self-defense cases involve handguns.
As many as 500,000 of those self-defense cases occur away from home.
Almost 10% of those self-defense cases are women defending themselves against sexual assault or abuse.
This means that guns are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of law-abiding citizens than to take a life.
At an estimated 263 million US population, in 1995, when the study was released, it also means that an average of 1 out of every 105 to 125 people that you know will use a gun for self-defense every year."

http://actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml

 

[Fleetmon]

Thanks salesrep....interesting. No doubt otto will dispute it.

 

[ottotheclown]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...k_shooting.html
Originally Posted By: 02SE
Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
We have a wee bit of fact to deal with. 3500 people have been killed since 12/14. How come? You know what with guns.


Okay, your assertion is that 3500 innocent people that were minding their own business, have been killed by someone else using a gun to kill them, since 12/14/12.

Lets see a full list of these 3500 individuals, complete with a link to their obituary.

Now don't go all ACORN on us, and use each individual name 72 times...

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
.... But it is their point. Cars and doctors are intended for good transport and for good health. Guns are made to kill - people, hunting, or targets to hone skills to do same. ....(emphasis added)


Really, why even get into that kind of moron-a-thon argument? Ask the detractors how many lives have been saved by the defensive use of handguns. That's the true evidence of a beneficial purpose or not.

"..... On the other hand, prohibitionist measures, whether aimed at all guns or just at handguns, are aimed at disarming criminals and noncriminals alike. They would therefore discourage and presumably decrease the frequency of DGU among noncriminal crime victims because even minimally effective gun bans would disarm at least some noncriminals. The same would be true of laws which ban gun carrying. In sum, measures that effectively reduce gun availability among the noncriminal majority also would reduce DGUs that otherwise would have saved lives, prevented injuries, thwarted rape attempts, driven off burglars, and helped victims retain their property.

Since as many as 400,000 people a year use guns in situations where the defenders claim that they "almost certainly" saved a life by doing so, this result cannot be dismissed as trivial. If even one-tenth of these people are accurate in their stated perceptions, the number of lives saved by victim use of guns would still exceed the total number [Page 181] of lives taken with guns. ..."

see, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self Defense With a Gun,
Kleck and Gertz, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern, 1995 http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm.

I don't like the guns / cars thing because you, and I, and everyone else, has a constitutional right to keep, and to bear, arms. You, or I, don't need to justify it - it's our right. Just like it's my right to go down to the town square and trash talk whatever tax fattened, two bit, public official I want. I don't have to justify it - it's my right. I can tell the police I don't consent to a search and don't come back without a warrant, issued on probable cause. I don't have to justify it - it's my right. And so on.

If you just have to go there, of course cars are intended for good transport. Do people misuse cars to intentionally kill other people? They sure do. Are cars employed in crimes? Absolutely, every day, thousands of times every hour, I would expect. Does it make them less beneficial because some people misuse them? Even if it does, it doesn't necessarily follow that you pre-emptively remove them from the hands of people who use them in their intended manner.

The guns that are available to people like you and me, are intended for sport and personal protection. They are just as useful, and just as benign as most automobiles, when used as intended. Does it make them less beneficial because some people misuse them? Even if it does, it doesn't necessarily follow that you pre-emptively remove them from the hands of people who use them in their intended manner.


Avoiding a deadly force confrontation with a gun owner is remarkably easy - don't threaten him/her with great bodily harm or deadly force while cutting off his/her means of escape from the situation, or invade their home. Easy, breezy.

Avoiding a deadly confrontation with a misused car is often just luck, grace of God, fate is the hunter, whatever you want to call it.

 

[ottotheclown]

Also there is a list every week on Dailykos that is listed another week in gun crazy USA. which will not work here so you have to find it. It lists every murder by day and date that month. When I find it I will post it but you cannot link this. Keep in mind the president of Syria could be using this logic that some have.Acorn is not around anymore sorry dated reference.
Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...k_shooting.html
Originally Posted By: 02SE
Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
We have a wee bit of fact to deal with. 3500 people have been killed since 12/14. How come? You know what with guns.


Okay, your assertion is that 3500 innocent people that were minding their own business, have been killed by someone else using a gun to kill them, since 12/14/12.

Lets see a full list of these 3500 individuals, complete with a link to their obituary.

Now don't go all ACORN on us, and use each individual name 72 times...

 

[ottotheclown]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/04/1199267/-Another-day-in-the-Gun-Crazy-U-S-A o2se this is the link that breaks it down I do not think it gives all the details but enough to show that we kill as many Americans as 9/11 did in a few weeks. I know you have an answer and your own facts which is not right. Your own opinionsbut not facts. Did we not just go through this a few months ago. If you cannot link this if you move fast enough you can find it. Hey it works so you can read the list and make your own facts.

 

[Win]

MSNBC

Slate.

DailyKos.

Real intellectual tour de force type stuff there.

 

[JHZR2]

Win,

Youre right, it is a dumb argument - just like gun owners making analogies to cars. It just is.

The problem is that while it may be our right to have ownership of all this stuff, the population at large has proven itself too stupid/careless/inept to shoulder the responsibility of gun ownership. Unfortuantely that has been proven by the FBI stolen gun stats. Because THOSE are the guns that are used in the crimes and SELF PROPAGATE safety issues. Its not the locked guns, its not those left to responsible owners. Its the unlocked, left in the open ones that get stolen or that the 5 year old find and shoot themselves in the head with.

I totally agree that there are many other dangers to life and limb that kill more than guns. I also think it is silly to argue them because of their basic intent and use makes them a completely different story and situation.

I do have a problem with irresponsibility, and whole-heartedly believe that if more personal responsibility was taken on part of the population at large, that over time the stats would improve and the issue of gun ownership for public safety would be a non-issue - exposing those who inherently do indeed want to take our rights away. Unfortunately the irresponsible have put enough hurt on responsible gun owners that I unfortunately believe we will all need to feel some pain. Do I dislike it? Yes. Will it hurt me? Yes. Will I feel it to be a removal of my rights? Yes. But unfortunately SOMETHING needs to be done because there are far too many irresponsible people not suited for gun ownership, who are causing the propagation of death and fear, hurting us all.

All I hear from most reminds me of an ostrich putting their head in the sand. Unfortunately there is 25-50% of the population, vocal and voting people, who can use peaceful people as boogeymen with this. It has to be nipped in the bud another way so that proper responsible gun owners like many/most of us in the thread dont get lumped in the same way. I believe that the shallow arguments all need to get swept out from underneath - but that requires a proactive approach to root out irresponsibility from the core, and make the issues into non-issues so that they cant be used against us.

We the people have unfortunately allowed the bad stuff to propagate and cause this. And the stats are there to "prove" it, and the deck isnt stacked in our favor. So an alternate approach bessides burying heads in the sand and shouting for more guns needs to come forth to nip this all in the bud. Otherwise the ban all guns result will come forth out of the hundred million people who dislike and want to get rid of them...

Its clear that this kind is already gaining traction. It must be stopped. But the just buy more guns answer IMO isnt palatable to many reasonable people, causing more alienation of a greater amount of the public - which is exactly what the anti-gun crowd wants.

 

[ottotheclown]

That is better than the bat gung crazy wingnut sites. How is Gomert doing these days??
Originally Posted By: Win
MSNBC

Slate.

DailyKos.

Real intellectual tour de force type stuff there.

 

[ottotheclown]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Win,

Youre right, it is a dumb argument - just like gun owners making analogies to cars. It just is.

The problem is that while it may be our right to have ownership of all this stuff, the population at large has proven itself too stupid/careless/inept to shoulder the responsibility of gun ownership. Unfortuantely that has been proven by the FBI stolen gun stats. Because THOSE are the guns that are used in the crimes and SELF PROPAGATE safety issues. Its not the locked guns, its not those left to responsible owners. Its the unlocked, left in the open ones that get stolen or that the 5 year old find and shoot themselves in the head with.

I totally agree that there are many other dangers to life and limb that kill more than guns. I also think it is silly to argue them because of their basic intent and use makes them a completely different story and situation.

I do have a problem with irresponsibility, and whole-heartedly believe that if more personal responsibility was taken on part of the population at large, that over time the stats would improve and the issue of gun ownership for public safety would be a non-issue - exposing those who inherently do indeed want to take our rights away. Unfortunately the irresponsible have put enough hurt on responsible gun owners that I unfortunately believe we will all need to feel some pain. Do I dislike it? Yes. Will it hurt me? Yes. Will I feel it to be a removal of my rights? Yes. But unfortunately SOMETHING needs to be done because there are far too many irresponsible people not suited for gun ownership, who are causing the propagation of death and fear, hurting us all.

All I hear from most reminds me of an ostrich putting their head in the sand. Unfortunately there is 25-50% of the population, vocal and voting people, who can use peaceful people as boogeymen with this. It has to be nipped in the bud another way so that proper responsible gun owners like many/most of us in the thread dont get lumped in the same way. I believe that the shallow arguments all need to get swept out from underneath - but that requires a proactive approach to root out irresponsibility from the core, and make the issues into non-issues so that they cant be used against us.

We the people have unfortunately allowed the bad stuff to propagate and cause this. And the stats are there to "prove" it, and the deck isnt stacked in our favor. So an alternate approach bessides burying heads in the sand and shouting for more guns needs to come forth to nip this all in the bud.